In June of 1963, Fannie Lou Hamer was arrested in Winona, Mississippi, for using a restaurant restroom while Black. State troopers forced two Black prisoners, under threat, to beat her with a blackjack while she lay face down on a jail cell bed. A policeman pulled her dress up while she tried to shield herself; one of them beat her in the head. She came out of that cell with a blood clot behind one eye and a permanent limp.
A year and a half later, standing in a Harlem church beside Malcolm X, Hamer told that story in full. And then she said the line that outlived the speech: “I’ve been tired so long, now I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.”
Hamer’s most famous line, like the speech in which she gave it, was not aimed at Washington DC. It was aimed at the church. “Christianity is being concerned about your fellow man, not building a million-dollar church while people are starving right around the corner,” she said. Hamer believed in the prophet Amos’s declaration to “let justice roll down like waters.” She didn’t close her testimony on a note of exhaustion or policy. She closed on something closer to resurrection hope — “Then I know my life won’t be in vain.”
That distinction is worth sitting with. Hamer’s witness was unmistakably and specifically Christian — not generically humanitarian and not borrowed from any party’s platform. The justice she demanded was rooted in Amos and the cross, not in an ideology that happened to share her conclusions. This matters more now than it did even a few years ago.
Howard Thurman knew something about backs against the wall. He chose not to lead a mass movement, building interracial community instead and cultivating the interior life of people who had every reason to be consumed by rage. For the oppressed, he understood, interior depth isn’t an escape from politics — it’s what sustains a person through a struggle that won’t end in their lifetime. Martin Luther King Jr. carried Thurman’s Jesus and the Disinherited with him in Montgomery.
Both Thurman and Hamer understood something the church keeps having to relearn: the wellspring has to be deeper than the headlines, or it runs dry exactly when it’s needed most.
All this has echoes of an earlier debate from another decade, another emergency.
In the 1930s, Karl Barth spoke to a gathering of German pastors and never once mentioned Adolf Hitler. Asked why, he reportedly said: “I have the joyful task of proclaiming Jesus Christ. Why would I waste time on a nothing?” Reinhold Niebuhr thought that was close to a betrayal — you cannot preach a gospel that floats above the actual catastrophes of history.
Both theologians had a point, though perhaps not in the ways that appear at a glance. Niebuhr was right that a gospel naming no specific harm names nothing at all; the church cannot retreat into private piety while people are broken by injustice in front of it. But Barth’s instinct deserves a harder look than it usually gets today. His worry was not that the church would engage the world. It was that the church would let the world’s categories — its parties, its language of left and right — become the substance of its preaching, so that “justice” stops being a word borrowed from Amos and becomes a word borrowed from a campaign. When that happens, the church has handed the gospel to whichever political coalition currently agrees with it, tying Christ’s claim on the world to the fortunes of an election cycle.
Hamer is the corrective to both errors at once, which is why she belongs at the center of this conversation. She named the specific harm — the courthouse, the blackjack, the men who beat her — with a precision Niebuhr would have admired. But she never spoke as though the cause belonged to a political party. It belonged to Amos. It belonged to the cross. It belonged to a God who would not be just, she said, if that God let her tormentors into heaven unchanged. This is the church’s own first language, spoken fluently by a woman with a sixth-grade education and a body that bore the cost of what she said.
The most important choice in front of those who seek to follow Jesus fully in this season is not whether to speak about justice, but in whose vocabulary. Borrow the language of any party or movement, however well-intentioned, and the gospel becomes a subsidiary of something smaller than itself, vulnerable to every shift in the political wind. Speak in Hamer’s vocabulary — Amos, the cross, the God who meets the cast-out in the wilderness — and the church says something no platform can say and no election can take away.
No Comments